KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.354/06 JUDGMENT DATED:12/11/09 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The Secretary, Aroor Grama Panchayath, : APPELLANT Aroor P.O., Pin-688 534. (By Adv.N.Balachandran) Vs M.V.Anilkumar, Tharangam, : RESPONDENT Aroor – 688 534. (By Adv.E.D.Zacharias) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/ Secretary, Grama Panchayat in OP 176/04 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.500 as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had taken on rent for a period of one year Room No.S4 of Aroor Grama Panchayath Shopping Complex. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was deposited as security and the rent was Rs.360/- per month. As per the sales proclamation all the rooms of the shopping complex were electrified. But there was no electric connection in the particular room. It was assured that the electric connection will be provided within a week etc. But the same was not provided. The rental arrangement was renewed on 1/4/04 with enhancement of 5% of the monthly rent. The room was taken for running a computer center. But he could not do so for want of electricity. He is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also for a direction to provide electric connection and also to return the past monthly rent paid. 3. The opposite party has filed version contending that before the auction the complainant and other bidders were permitted to personally verify the rooms and facilities. The electric connection to the 2nd floor wherein the impugned room is situated was disconnect by KSEB directing rewiring. The Panchayat has to undergo a lot of formalities including Government sanction to undertake rewiring. The complainant has not applied for any license to start computer center. It is stated that the electric connection will be provided positively within 6 months. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A10. 5. The Forum has relied on the version of PW1 and held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing electric connection and that the complainant sustained considerable loss as he could not start the computer center. 6. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Forum is not having jurisdiction as the matter related to landlord tenant relationship. It was pointed out that the counsel for the respondent that no such contention was raised in the version filed or in the appeal memorandum. It is pointed out that by the counsel for the opposite party that it was mentioned in the version that the complaint is not maintainable. 7. We find that as pointed out that the counsel for the appellant in cases where the Forum inherently lacks jurisdiction. Hence the above is a question of law and can be raised at any time. It was also pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the complainant is the still in occupation of the premises. The appellant has produced the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions dated 11/10/07 vide the appeal filed by the complainant as appeal No.157/07. The same was dismissed pointing out that it is the discretion of the Panchayath to renew or not renew the rental arrangement after the expiry of the period already fixed. He has staked his claim to continue the rental arrangement for one year more from 1/4/07. The counsel has relied on the decision in U.T.Chandigarh Administratin & Anr. Vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors, II (2009) CPJ I (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that the purchaser/lessee in public option is not a consumer and that the owner of the property is not a trader or service provider. Any grievances by the purchaser/lessee will not give raise to a complaint or consumer dispute and that the Fora under the Act has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee. The counsel has also relied on the decision in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd., Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., I (1992)CPJ 293 (NC). The National Commission held therein that the dispute between the landlord and tenant does not at all come within the purview of the Consumer Protectin Act. The Supreme Court in Laxmiben Laxmichand Shah Vs. Sakerben Kanji Chandan, I (2001) CPJ 7 (SC) in also the above principle was reiterated. 8. We find in the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and the National Commission the complainant who is the auction purchaser cum lessee cannot be treated as a consumer attracting the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Fora under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of such a person. In the result the order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
